United States of America v. Gregory Bryan Rush

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY BRYAN RUSH,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50419
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00607-PA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Bryan Rush appeals from the lifetime term of supervised release
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
MAR 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-50419 2
§ 1291, and we vacate and remand.
The government contends that this appeal should be dismissed in light of the
appeal waiver set forth in Rush’s plea agreement. We decline to apply the appeal
waiver because the language concerning the supervised release term is ambiguous,
and so the waiver does not preclude our review. See United States v. Cope, 527
F.3d 944, 950-51 (9th Cir. 2008).
Rush contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to provide
an explanation for imposing a lifetime term of supervised release. Because the
district court did not explain its decision to impose a lifetime term of supervised
release, or its rationale for the lifetime supervised release term, we vacate the
supervised release term and remand for further sentencing proceedings. See United
States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103-05 (9th Cir. 2009) (failure to provide any
reasons for sentence imposed constituted reversible plain error).
In light of the foregoing, we do not reach Rush’s contention that the lifetime
term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --